Miranda Stephen P, Schaefer Kristen G, Vates G Edward, Gormley William B, Buss Mary K
Department of Neurosurgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Division of Palliative Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
J Surg Educ. 2019 Nov-Dec;76(6):1691-1702. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.06.010. Epub 2019 Jun 22.
Neurosurgeons care for critically ill patients near the end of life, yet little is known about how well their training prepares them for this role. We surveyed a random sample of neurosurgery residents to describe the quantity and quality of teaching activities related to serious illness communication and palliative care, and resident attitudes and perceived preparedness to care for seriously ill patients.
A previously validated survey instrument was adapted to reflect required communication and palliative care competencies in the 2015 the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones for Neurological Surgery. The survey was reviewed for content validity by independent faculty neurosurgeons, piloted with graduating neurosurgical residents, and distributed online in August 2016 to neurosurgery residents in the United States using the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS)/Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) Joint Section on Neurotrauma and Critical Care email listserv. Multiple choice and Likert scale responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Sixty-two responses were recorded between August 2016 and October 2016. Most respondents reported no explicit teaching on: explaining risks and benefits of intubation and ventilation (69%), formulating prognoses in neurocritical care (60%), or leading family meetings (69%). Compared to performing craniotomies, respondents had less frequent practice leading discussions about withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (61% vs. 90%, p < 0.01, "weekly or more frequently"), and were less often observed (18% vs. 87%, p < 0.01) and given feedback on their performance (11% vs. 58%, p < 0.01). Nearly all respondents (95%) felt "prepared to discuss withdrawing life-sustaining treatments," however half (48%) reported they "would benefit from more communication training during residency." Most (87%) reported moral distress, agreeing that they "participated in operations and worried whether surgery aligned with patient goals."
Residents in our sample reported limited formal training, and relatively less observation and feedback, on required ACGME competencies in palliative care and communication. Most reported preparedness in this domain, but many were receptive to more training. Better quality and more consistent palliative care education in neurosurgery residency could improve competency and help ensure that neurosurgical care aligns with patient goals.
神经外科医生负责治疗临终前的重症患者,但对于他们的培训在多大程度上使他们胜任这一角色,人们了解甚少。我们对神经外科住院医师进行了随机抽样调查,以描述与重症沟通和姑息治疗相关的教学活动的数量和质量,以及住院医师对治疗重症患者的态度和自我认知的准备情况。
对一份先前经过验证的调查问卷进行了调整,以反映2015年毕业后医学教育认证委员会(ACGME)神经外科里程碑中所需的沟通和姑息治疗能力。该调查问卷由独立的神经外科教员进行内容效度审查,在即将毕业的神经外科住院医师中进行预试,并于2016年8月通过美国神经外科医师协会(AANS)/神经外科医师大会(CNS)神经创伤与重症监护联合分会的电子邮件列表在美国在线分发给神经外科住院医师。使用描述性统计方法分析多项选择题和李克特量表的回答。
在2016年8月至10月期间记录了62份回复。大多数受访者表示没有接受过关于以下方面的明确教学:解释插管和通气的风险与益处(69%)、在神经重症监护中制定预后(60%)或主持家属会议(69%)。与进行开颅手术相比,受访者主持关于撤除维持生命治疗的讨论的频率较低(61%对90%,p<0.01,“每周或更频繁”),被观察到主持讨论的频率较低(18%对87%,p<0.01),并且得到关于其表现的反馈的频率较低(11%对58%,p<0.01)。几乎所有受访者(95%)觉得“有准备讨论撤除维持生命的治疗”,然而一半(48%)的受访者表示他们“在住院期间会从更多的沟通培训中受益”。大多数(87%)受访者表示有道德困扰,他们认同“参与了手术并担心手术是否符合患者的目标”。
我们样本中的住院医师报告称,在ACGME要求的姑息治疗和沟通能力方面,他们接受的正规培训有限,观察和反馈相对较少。大多数受访者表示在这方面有准备,但许多人愿意接受更多培训。在神经外科住院医师培训中提高姑息治疗教育的质量和一致性,可以提高能力,并有助于确保神经外科治疗符合患者的目标。